Question accordingly negatived.
	 It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than forty Members had taken part in the Division, Mr. Deputy Speaker  declared that the Question was not decided.

Christopher Chope: Not enough, no. I think that everybody on that list is entitled to a knighthood.
	Who could have known when the Bill was presented, seven months ago on 10 December, that today it would top of the billing for Second Reading and that it would be so highly topical? There is even currently a petition on the Downing street website calling for exactly what the Bill would deliver—an audit of the benefits and costs of the UK's membership of the European Union.
	In last Sunday's  Sunday Telegraph there was as leading article headed, "If EU will not listen, it risks popular revolt". It stated that
	"institutions today need democratic endorsement if they are to be legitimate: it is now accepted by almost everyone that people cannot be ruled against their collective will, as expressed in elections or referendums."
	That leads to me a quotation from our distinguished former Speaker, the late Lord Weatherill. He wrote a preface to the excellent work by Ian Milne, "A Cost Too Far?—An analysis of the net economic costs and benefits for the UK of EU membership". I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has a copy of it with him. It was published in July 2004, and in his foreword, Lord Weatherill stated that when he was the Conservative Government's deputy Chief Whip in 1972, he supported entry into the European Common Market
	"on the assurance of the Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath, that 'joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty.'"
	He stated that things had moved on a bit since then, and that what was important was that
	"Parliamentarians now have a sacred duty honestly to explain the pros and cons of our developing relationship with the European Union. Only then can the people make an informed choice."
	Of course, at that stage we had as our Prime Minister somebody who had said that he wanted to dispel the myths about Europe and "let battle be joined". He suggested that we would have a referendum and that the Government would win it. I shall not go over the history since then, but the Government are now running away from the will of the people.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That view is very much reflected in the opinion polls. I find it disappointing that our own Government are not being more robust in this respect. The Irish people have spoken, but when I intervened on the Foreign Secretary on 16 June to ask him whether he would condemn people—particularly Members of the European Parliament—who refused to respect the verdict of the Irish people, instead of saying, "Yes, I will", he said, in rather circumlocutory language:
	"Anyone who refuses to respect the decision of the Irish people is obviously not doing justice by the systems that exist".—[ Official Report, 16 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 720.]
	It is that kind of language that makes our people very suspicious of the real motives in Europe.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is correct and brings me on to my next point. In a recent Global Vision/ICM survey, 41 per cent. of voters said that their ideal relationship with Europe would be one based simply on trade and co-operation. Only 27 per cent.—a very small percentage—wanted Britain to stay a full EU member, while 26 per cent. wanted to withdraw altogether. The centre ground—as hon. Members know, I am always interested in discussing that ground in our Friday debates—is very much focused on 41 per cent. saying that they want a different relationship from the current one, while still wishing to maintain a relationship. Under my Bill, we could have a factual analysis of what a relationship with Europe based simply on trade and co-operation would entail in terms of costs and benefits. The factual background could then be used to inform a referendum on renegotiation of our relationship with Europe. Sooner or later, it will come to that. We are going to need a renegotiation and we will need to have a referendum in order to take the people with us.

William Cash: Although the Bill's provisions are confined specifically to the United Kingdom and our Parliament, should not the other member states be urged to produce similar Bills so that they too can assess the consequences of the increasing dangers visited on their populations, such as rising food and commodity prices and all the difficulties resulting from the common agricultural policy that my hon. Friend has described? Should not each Parliament—throughout the European Union, not just at the bureaucratic Orwellian centre to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred—have the opportunity to make an assessment of the kind that my hon. Friend, in a most moderate speech, is advocating so satisfactorily?

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman will have to address that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but I would have thought that it is obvious we need to have that discussion. If we are going to have these directives, we need to simplify them, if possible, and not make them even more fiendishly complicated. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I agree with him.
	We are all aware of the problems with the Rural Payments Agency, but the issues raised by the Court related for the most part to different interpretations of the rules. It noted, for example, that on the basis of maintaining land in "good agricultural and environmental" condition, England made payments to railway companies, golf and leisure clubs and city councils. That issue was not limited to the UK. Payments to horse riding and breeding clubs were noted in Germany and Sweden. It is supposed to be a scheme to help struggling farmers. The UK authorities took the view that although the fairway of a golf course would not be eligible for a payment under the CAP, other land owned by a golf course could be eligible. But why is the money of the hard-pressed European taxpayer going to golf clubs? I shall resist the obvious temptation to comment on possible discrimination against cricket, football and rugby. We might elicit French and Italian support for the latter two, but I fear that cricket is probably a lost cause—

Edward Leigh: There has been a problem with secrecy. It is in the interests of everyone, including those who believe passionately in Europe, to achieve more transparency and accountability, so that such reports are released, whether they are hot potatoes or not—and especially as they relate to tobacco.  [ Laughter. ] I must carry on.
	Before I was distracted, I was saying how difficult it is to turn the situation around, even when the will exists to do so, and I wish to give an example. In its last annual report, the Commission noted that some £89 billion of outstanding commitments from the 2000-06 financial framework were yet to be paid. The outstanding commitment relating to the structural measures programme was equivalent to more than two and a half years expenditure at the 2006 spending rate. That means that while officials in member states are busy launching new programmes for 2007-13, they are also dealing with the running down of programmes from the previous period. It is no wonder that they and we are confused.
	It is clear that before we can hope for a clear audit of the EU accounts, member state Governments must take every opportunity to push for simplification and a reduction in the bureaucracy. The EU-wide review of the European budget, on the face of it, provides just such an opportunity, but I fear that it is all to easy for good intentions to be lost once bureaucrats begin to argue over the fine detail. We want to know what the Government are doing to lobby for change and whether they think that the Commission's review will deliver on simplification. There is a clear opportunity for the British Government to lobby for change as this is where we can lead opinion in Europe.
	Let me now look at fraud and irregularity. The lack of a positive audit opinion on the EU accounts does not necessarily indicate that high levels of fraudulent or corrupt transactions have actually taken place. For instance, in 2006 member states notified the Commission of more than 12,000 irregularities with a total value of £788 million, of which some £220 million was estimated to be due to suspected fraud. That is only 0.3 per cent. of the budget. No fraud is acceptable, but different commentators will have different views on what these figures tell us. There is some confusion about that. Of concern to us, however, is the reliance we can place on any of those figures.
	The figures quoted are influenced by the timeliness and accuracy of the member states reporting to OLAF, which is the European anti-fraud office. OLAF has reported that recording practices vary and that data communicated by member states are sometimes incomplete. Furthermore, the distinction between suspected fraud and other irregularities is not consistent. We simply do not have that famous level playing field throughout Europe. We do not know exactly what is going on.
	Member states do not always have the same definition of criminal risk. A significant proportion of reports do not distinguish between suspected fraud and irregularity. A crime in the UK might not necessarily be a crime in Greece, and vice versa. If we do not properly judge the EU's performance on this vital issue, we surely need to apply greater pressure to get these reporting systems up to scratch so that we know what is going on.

Edward Leigh: I am a reasonable man and I will listen to any proposals that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. If a clear case were made for going in that direction, I would not necessarily be opposed to it. However, I would like to start with at least a level of knowledge before I jumped to a conclusion.
	Let me now talk about the benefits derived from EU expenditure. Over recent years, the focus of the debate has rightly, in my view, focused on how to strengthen basic financial management and we have arguably paid less attention to what we get from those programme. Our Committee's 2005 report noted that the European Court of Auditors had a duty to examine
	"whether the financial management has been sound".
	That corresponds broadly to the value-for-money audits carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the UK. It is very important. We have a superb system in this country of post hoc audit. Every Government Department is subjected to very close scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which reports to a Committee of the House— the Public Accounts Committee. We know what is going wrong. The equivalent process is weak in the EU. I should say that we have very weak budget control in this House—that is a long-standing campaign of mine—but we have very good audit control.
	So, what are we doing in Europe? Despite the importance of such work, we discover that the European Court of Auditors published only a handful of such reports a year. The concept of producing value-for-money reports, having a lot of publicity and going to a committee of the European Parliament to try to get a grip of what has gone wrong is still weak in the EU. We believe that the scale of that work is wholly inadequate. Perhaps it is not yet part of the continental tradition, but we can lead opinion on it because we are good at such work in this House.
	Since 2005, the Court has, to a certain extent, improved the quality of its special reports as a result of our campaigning. I know that the work is respected. For instance, in 2007, nine such reports were published, but they were limited. For instance, the subjects that they covered ranged from
	"the effectiveness of technical assistance in the context of capacity development"
	of government in beneficiary states to
	"The institutions' expenditure on buildings".
	That is all well and good, but I remain concerned that the volume and range of that audit work remains limited compared to the reports that we are doing week by week on our Government. We surely need to know much more about whether the money that we are contributing as European taxpayers is achieving good value for money, but we simply do not know yet.
	More fundamentally, properly to inform debate on these European programmes we need a much greater focus on measuring the value derived from them. I would be interested to know what the Minister is doing to encourage the EU institutions to address the important issues of having good reports on audit.

Edward Davey: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was slightly carried away, but in my defence, I may say that my points were made in response to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
	Coming back to the Bill, there are a few questions to ask before I come to how the audit would work. There is the issue of frequency to consider. The hon. Member for Christchurch proposes that the audit be carried out every five years. I am not sure whether that is the right frequency. When it comes to something as important and valuable as the European Union, I do not think that referendums or audits should be done so frequently. I would not object to an audit being done perhaps every 15 years, but five years seems a relatively odd period for such an important and indeed expensive piece of work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to waste taxpayers' money on too-frequent audits, which may be the result of the Bill.
	I will come on to another issue of substance that the Committee considering the Bill would need to look at; I hope that the hon. Gentleman can reassure us on the subject when he winds up the debate.

Edward Davey: I think that the hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong; the amount is actually slightly greater. I understand that it is about £4.69 billion, but I am sure that there are different ways of working out contributions. I have no problem with our considering the amount of money that he mentions—the public expenditure. That should be audited every year under current processes. However, the Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch goes far wider.
	Clause 2 of the Bill refers to the terms of reference. Although they make some sense, I am not sure whether they are drawn widely enough, as the rest of my speech will show. Bodies such as the European Union have quite a number of indirect but absolutely critical benefits. I will go on to talk about peace, the spread of democracy and human rights. I do not want to shy away from an argument based simply on easily quantifiable financial costs and benefits, but there are benefits that are more difficult to quantify. When the hon. Gentleman makes his winding-up speech, I would like reassurance that his terms of reference will cover the sorts of issues that I am talking about.

Edward Davey: I shall come on to those points directly, because I want to talk about the concept of peace. We now enjoy peace in western Europe, southern Europe and central and east Europe, and looking at history, that is unusual. Decades of peace have meant that we have not seen tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of citizens of Europe slaughtered on the battlefields of Europe, and that is relatively unusual. The question is: what role has the European Union played in that, and what role does it continue to play? I have never sought to argue that the past 63 years of peace in Europe are down solely to the European Union; clearly, that would be nonsense, and it would ignore the importance of NATO, the alliance with the US, the US umbrella in the time of the Soviet Union, the nuclear deterrent, and the economic growth that would have happened without the European Union. All those things have played an important part in keeping the peace.
	I am interested to know how the hon. Member for Christchurch thinks that the EU membership audit commission should go about the difficult task of working out cause and effect—working out what role the European Union has played, and continues to play, in keeping the peace. What is the probability that our country would have been involved in a war or armed conflict if there had been no European Union? I seriously think that that has to be assessed if the audit is to be correct. Frankly, I could not support the Bill if it did not consider those pretty fundamental questions. I would want to be sure that the terms of reference covered that issue. What assumptions would he wish the commission to make in respect of the value of lives—the lives of British servicemen and women that might have been at risk if we had had more wars because the EU was not there to play a role in preventing them?

Edward Davey: I think I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that we are very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman will not be present for much longer, as we enjoy his speeches, not least because they are exceedingly well informed and researched. May I on behalf of the House wish the hon. Gentleman's nephew and his wife-to-be the greatest happiness in the years to come living in Britain, and in Europe?
	On the intervention, I think it would be the wrong approach for the audit to be narrow and conducted simply in financial terms, although I also think that if it were the outcome would show a big positive from membership of the European Union. My support for the EU is not based simply on financial and economic grounds—although I think it is in the interests of the UK to be in on those grounds. The benefits are much broader. If we look at our membership of the EU in the historical context of peace, human rights and democracy, we begin to see the essence of the EU ideal. I was grateful when the hon. Member for Christchurch intervened to say that part 2 of the terms of reference is aimed at capturing such matters; I am much happier because of that clarification.
	Of course, there are many causes of the emergence of more democratic nations in Europe, particularly in southern, central and eastern Europe. I do not claim that the EU is the only contributor to that welcome development. The collapse of the Soviet Union, and all the reasons behind it, are probably more important—and the rise of some of the nationalist movements in central and eastern Europe has contributed, too.
	All of this shows what a difficult job the commission will have to do; it will have to conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis and get through some tricky issues. I am reminded of Sir Nicholas Stern's recent work in looking at the potential costs and benefits of climate change. I refer the hon. Member for Christchurch to that study. The Stern review of climate change had to deal with some difficult risk and probability analysis, using some clever econometric and mathematical models to work out the monetary value of any particular scenario. The hon. Gentleman's audit would have to do much the same in looking at democracy, human rights and peace. Although I think the commission would be engaged in a laudable exercise, I also think it would have to do some tricky work, such as assessing the value to Britain of having more democracies.
	One can take a very narrow view and say that it is good that there are more countries such as China whose economies are growing and that are able to trade with us, and that we need not worry about other aspects of life in those countries. However, I believe that people in Britain and Members of this House are concerned about the human rights of the Chinese people and the lack of democracy in China, and I believe that that applies within the European context, too. I hope that the audit would look at that.
	I also hope that the audit would look at what the EU enables Britain to achieve by working with other partners which it might find difficult to achieve if it were outside the EU. Let me give a couple of examples. The EU is leading the way internationally in measures to deal with climate change. We have had a lot of problems working with our American colleagues on this issue, as they have been very reluctant to take the next step. Also, Australia, Japan and other countries that are leaders in the world have been unprepared to sign Kyoto and to make more commitments. Within the EU, we have managed to get many other countries to work with us to start addressing these issues at both global level and within the European context. I wonder how this audit would analyse that cost and benefit. Would it be more difficult to achieve these sorts of agreements if we did not have the EU, which has processes and develops closer relationships between countries so that they can trust each other and take another step forward?

Edward Davey: Oui—or "yes" in whatever language we want to use; I shall not go on, as I do not wish to be ruled out of order again. I have no problem with the Bill. All I am doing is setting out some of the issues that I hope any commission established through this proposed legislation would address. It would be vital that it did so. However, if we did not have cast-iron assurances on Third Reading that those issues would be addressed, I would be less willing to support the Bill. Nevertheless, in principle and on the face of things, having read the Bill and having already got assurances from hon. Member for Christchurch, I think it moves in the right direction.
	There are other issues to do with the nature of international co-operation that the institutions of the EU make possible, and which would be more difficult to address if we were not members of it. Let me give a practical example, following the problems to do with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and how that affected the beef industry in our country. The Americans have not yet allowed British beef properly into USA markets. When there was a similar situation to do with the French, we were able through the European institutions to take them to court and force them to do so. The British beef industry was then able to start exports into the French market. Without the EU, I suggest that that would have been—I shall pronounce the following word in the French manner—"impossible". I hope the audit would be able to take account of many such benefits. When we have genuine disputes with countries, our farmers—or whatever industry is involved—can be put at a disadvantage if there is not a dispute mechanism to sort them out.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman simply shows how difficult such an audit would be, as it would have to take into account many matters. My purpose is to make sure that if and when this audit is conducted it is genuinely comprehensive and is not narrow and focused on only one aspect. It is quite difficult to make a full assessment of some of these issues, which are vital to the interests of business in this country.

Edward Davey: Although I have not read the hon. Gentleman's Bill, from his description of it I think I probably would be able to support it. I am concerned that any money spent by the EU should be spent properly. On financial scrutiny of EU budgets, let me first say that I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. The EU budget represents just over 1 per cent. of gross national income across the EU, and slightly less than 2 per cent. of UK public expenditure. While we should make sure that every single penny is properly audited and scrutinised, the idea that that should be the only focus of corruption analysis or value-for-money analysis does not bear much scrutiny. There are many other examples of wasted money, and they are far greater than the examples of wasted money in the European Union. They occur in Whitehall and in local government, and as elected representatives, it is our job to hunt down such waste.
	Another factor that the commission would find it quite difficult to get its head around, and which shows the nature and benefits of the European Union, is the freedom to move. It is a core freedom in the European Union—the freedom to travel on holiday, to work, to live and to set up a business anywhere throughout the EU. All those freedoms are crucial, and millions of UK citizens benefit from them. We all know about the UK citizens who live in France and in Spain, but when I holidayed in Bulgaria last year, I was impressed by the estate agents in Plovdiv, who advertised all their properties in English with the price in sterling, not just in euros, which I am sure will please the hon. Member for Christchurch.
	That situation shows both the number of British people who want to buy property and land in Bulgaria, and some of the protections, safeguards and freedoms that come from the European Union, because the flow of British people to Bulgaria has increased substantially since Bulgaria joined the European Union. I should be interested to know how the hon. Gentleman's commission would take account of the value to Britain and to British people of those extra freedoms. Clearly, it would have to assess whether those people could have followed that course without Bulgaria having joined the European Union, and there would have to be some very complicated analysis. It is important that we examine the value to individuals of the freedom to move, because my concern is that if we were to leave the EU and there were restrictions on the movement of individual British people, there might be a cost to every single person.
	The issue of trade is more about a narrow financial and commercial analysis, which was the original intention behind the hon. Gentleman's Bill. There is the vexed question of whether the EU has increased trade and how many jobs that in turn creates. There are many different estimates. The hon. Gentleman quoted Civitas's estimates, but there have been estimates from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and many others, and surprise, surprise, they all disagree with each other, so a properly constituted body may need to look more deeply at the analysis of trade. However, we in this House are all concerned about the unnecessary cost of regulations, and his audit will have to be rather careful about how it examines the European Union's role in that area.
	I always like quoting the regulation on strawberries, because it says what a strawberry is and is not. The hon. Gentleman may find it outrageous that the EU has a regulation on strawberries, and I am sure that the popular press would like to pillory the situation, too, but the truth is that before the EU had a single regulation throughout the single market, every single, individual member state, almost without exception, had a regulation on what a strawberry was. The EU regulation on a strawberry resulted in all the other individual regulations on strawberries being torn up. So if one is going to analyse the costs and benefits of regulations in the European Union, one must work out how many extra regulations pulling out of the EU would impose, because we might have to go back to a series of individual member states' regulations on what a strawberry is, and heaven forbid that we go that way.
	That makes my point: the idea that we will not have regulations if we are outside the EU is nonsense. We had regulations before we went into the EU.

William Cash: We could be in danger of developing a completely separate argument on a separate Bill, but if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, we must decide what kind of regulations we want our businesses to have to comply with. The other member states must work out, in relation to the global marketplace, the extent of the burdens, including the £600 billion to which Mr. Verheugen referred in respect of the European Union, that they can afford to have inflicted on their businesses.
	That is the key question. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the result would be that the evaluation was a proper one of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggests, and the other member states were prepared to listen, we would end up with a more comprehensive reduction in burdens on business all round.

Edward Davey: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will think about that, but he makes a strong case for the advantages to many parts of Britain and British business of our membership of the European Union. I hope that the audit would take into account the extra protection given to UK brands that the European Union provides.
	I want to touch briefly on the competition regime. In recent years, the UK Government have rightly toughened up the competition regime as it applies within the UK. Of course, UK competition authorities cannot exercise any influence on any other country. However, through our membership of the European Union we can ensure that the EU's competition authorities, working with member states' national competition authorities, can pursue the important objective, which is in this country's national interests, of liberalising markets across the EU. In the case of the telecoms market across the EU, it is estimated that cost of making international telephone calls has fallen by 80 per cent. in the past 25 years. It is difficult to think that that would have happened through technology alone; the European Union has been a very important factor in making it happen. We have seen a recent example of the EU cutting the mobile phone costs of roaming across the EU. That has a massive benefit to individual consumers.
	I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch how his audit would take account of the reduction in prices that consumers have seen in many markets because of the liberalisation that has been driven by the European Union, following a very British, Anglo-Saxon agenda. One of the reasons why the French and M. Sarkozy get so uptight is that they think that the European Commission is following a British agenda of liberalised markets, market forces and competition—and I think that it is. We have had a huge influence, and that brings massive benefits to our own people. His audit would have to take that into account.
	Let me give another example. The cost of air travel has fallen by about 40 per cent. in the past decade. That is also to do with Europe-wide measures that would not have been possible without the institutions of the European Union. The hon. Gentleman's audit would have to take account of all the potential future liberalisations that the European Union may well be able to bring about, particularly in the energy sector, that might not be possible if Britain were not in the EU. Britain is one of the driving forces behind the push towards energy liberalisation, and I would hazard a guess that if we were not a member of the European Union, that would not move forward. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's audit will take account of that.
	I have spoken for far longer than I had intended, partly because we have had an enjoyable debate about strawberries, weddings and the accounts. There is merit in the Bill, as long as the audit is as thorough and comprehensive as it should be.

Robert Syms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the measured and reasonable way in which he introduced the Bill. A lot of figures are bandied about, and a decent study would help to inform public debate.
	Going back to first principles always creates the best debates, and one would have hoped that the Government did as a matter of course what my hon. Friend wants the proposed committee to do. Indeed, the reason why we marched out of a lot of the world, including Africa, after the independence of India, Burma and other countries was that the Treasury and the Foreign Office examined the costs and benefits of the British empire. They were overcome not by democracy but by the fact that a lot of the states in question cost us money. That was why, throughout the 1950s, Britain allowed a lot of countries in Africa to become independent—they did not pay. Ultimately, we as a nation must examine our associations, including our membership of the EU, and constantly keep under review their various benefits or disbenefits.
	The task that the Bill would set the commission is particularly difficult, as this wide-ranging debate has shown. The assessment is difficult, and I suspect that if the commission came up with any figures, they would have to be in ranges and based on a rough model. I suspect that given currency movements and terms of trade, the benefits would change over time. However, the Bill is a good and sensible way of moving forward and leaves to the commission how it would conduct its review. I would guess that taking evidence would be a very good way. Many public bodies and organisations, both supporters and opponents of the European institutions, would want to give evidence and put their views on record to form part of the public debate.
	I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend has included national security and defence in the terms of reference. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, there are much broader reasons for being in the EU than purely economic arrangements. It is largely about not trade but the French and the Germans living together. They have had three wars in the past century, if we include the French occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s. They have had a fraught history, and politicians from both those states determined in the post-war period that they wanted to trade, live together and form new institutions. That was logical in two countries where millions of people had died and there had been massive struggle.
	That is largely what the EU is about. After all, Germany has invaded every one of its neighbours in either its Prussian or German incarnation, except Switzerland. The Swiss were largely part of the greater German economy supply in the last war. Clearly, living with a Germany of 80 million is difficult. All those who live close to Germany have a fear of the Germans, and ironically German politicians have a fear of the Germans because of their recent history. When we consider German politics, and the CDU and the CSU, there is an element of fear because there have been some awful events in recent history. The Bill must therefore go far wider than purely economic benefits.
	The EU posed a particular challenge to us as a nation. Historically, we have always tried to divide and rule in Europe. We have always opposed the existence of one strong power source on the continent, whether it be a Napoleon or a Hitler. The challenge of the 1950s and 1960s, with the creation of the EU, was how to deal with a peaceful bloc, which had great influence on our trade, trying to work together. Our joining has always been a means of trying to influence what happens over the channel. It is no accident, considering the locations of Waterloo and the battlefields of Flanders—the Scheldt estuary is probably the shortest route for an invasion—that we have a legitimate public, political, military and economic interest in what happens over the channel. It is good that that element is included in the Bill. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made a good point about the broader issues.
	To finish that point, John Major said that we ought to be at the heart of Europe. I strongly disagreed with him, because there are different motives for different people in the EU. Being at the heart of the EU is clearly more important for the French and the Germans than it is for us, who will inevitably be on the periphery. Our worldwide trading patterns, including with US, our open economy and our Anglo-Saxon attitudes do not always fit so comfortably into what the EU does. The hon. Gentleman made a good point, which is that some of those characteristics, which we take to the European debate, should make the EU a much more open, free trade organisation than it is.
	We have always had a fraught relationship with Europe, not least because Britain is so framed by the development of its constitutional arrangements into the United Kingdom and Parliament. If someone wanted to show a cinema audience a five-second film that was a shorthand representation of us, they would probably show an image of Parliament and Big Ben. Whether it was a James Bond film or an Alexander Korda film in London, it would pan up the Thames and the world would know where it was, because that is how we define ourselves.
	If you wanted to define an Italian in five seconds, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might show the Coliseum or a plate of spaghetti, but Italy is really about language and family, not necessarily its constitutional arrangements. Would anybody know what the French Parliament, the French National Assembly, looks like? If you wanted to show what Parisians are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would pan across the Eiffel tower. Indeed, if you watched for what CNN correspondents sit in front of to show where they are, you would see the Eiffel tower, not the French constitutional arrangements. That is why it is so important that that element is included in the Bill. If you were to define the Dutch, you would probably choose the canals. Germans are much more difficult—you could go for Berlin or a Volkswagen factory.
	Britain is unique, however, in that we are very defined by our constitutional situation. That is why we take the arguments to heart so much and become so uncomfortable with lots of constitutions being written. After all, there are people alive today in the eastern part of Germany who were born in the Weimar Republic, spent some time under Nazis, then lived in the German Democratic Republic and are now elderly pensioners in the German Federal Republic. They will have seen different capitals, different boundaries, different constitutions and different systems, whereas people in Dorset are rather rooted in things going on in the same way. The constitutional situation is clearly difficult for us in relation to Europe—it is not impossible, but there are different problems.
	Then we come to assess the economic benefits. Our pattern of trade has been changed over the past 20 or 30 years, and many jobs are dependent on the European Union. The European Union is still a very rich part of the world and there is a still a potentially big market. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, a lot of the supply side changes made under Baroness Thatcher have made us a much more competitive economy, enabling us to be successful and to sell to people round the world. We have also been a major recipient of inward investment.
	All those things would have to be taken into account. I am glad that the terms of reference are drawn quite widely, because any inquiry would have to consider immigration and the movement of peoples. In recent years we have all seen many citizens from Poland come to work in our country. Many of them work hard and benefit the economy, but there are pluses and minuses when people move, and they also need housing, the national health service and all the other things that this country must provide in the longer term.
	All those things would need to be considered. If the committee chose a model, took evidence and produced a report, which I suspect would make some quite wide-ranging proposals, it would not need to do the whole job every five years. All it would have to do would be review what had changed since its previous report. I do not see the process as being quite as bureaucratic or as having to be repeated again. Once the committee had established a model to assess the impact, it would simply have to update its views and values.
	When I first came to the House 10 years ago, there was a lot of debate about the potential benefits and disbenefits of the euro. Many people were saying that the City of London would disappear if we did not join, yet we now have a robust, successful City that has created many jobs, including jobs for Europeans. Anyone who goes to Hyde park on a Sunday will hear lots of foreign voices, and many of those people work for banks in the City of London, which is very successful. Clearly, currency and trade arrangements would have to be considered as part of the terms of reference of the Bill.
	This is a topical subject. Many of my constituents said, "Three cheers for the Irish!" because of what the Irish people have done. It is sometimes inconvenient for politicians when the public speak, but the Irish have clearly set out their concerns about the treaty, as other countries did at an earlier stage. The arrogance of the European elite was mentioned earlier. If we ask people to vote yes or no, and they vote no, how much analysis does that need? That seems to be a clear decision. The public view of politicians is undermined when we get an inconvenient answer and try to ignore it or get round it. There is now greater scepticism among the peoples of Europe about the direction in which Europe is going. In my view, if there were an in-out vote today, I would still vote to be in, because I think that on balance there are still benefits to be had. However, public debate in the UK would be much better informed if we had some learned people looking at the pluses and minuses of the organisation, to give us a factual basis for remaining in it and, more importantly, to enable us to improve the situation.
	There is some unfinished business involved in this, and we might well have to go down the route of renegotiating certain terms—I hope that we would still maintain our membership—as that would be beneficial for Europe as a whole. There are now so many measures on the statute book, and the costs to industry and to many EU citizens are such that I cannot see the present model lasting over the next 40 or 50 years, unless Governments start to kick up a fuss and throw their weight around.
	One of the first votes that I ever took was in the referendum on whether we should join the common market in the middle 1970s. I voted yes—just. That was the only vote in my life in which I could put my hand on my heart and say that I could never be sure that I had done the right thing—

Nigel Evans: It is always a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who has made a thoughtful speech. I did not agree with all of it, particularly the last bit, but that is the way we are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on winning the ballot and bringing this issue to the House. I am delighted to support his Bill and I look forward to hearing whether the Minister is minded to allow it to go through to its Committee stage. Such deliberations would be useful for fleshing out many of the issues that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised in his speech.
	Like the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, I raised three cheers for the Irish. Indeed, that night, I went into my local pub, the Swan with Two Necks, and had a pint of Guinness to celebrate. Guinness is not my usual tipple; I am a bitter man, as will become apparent as I continue my speech. I like a pint of Copper Dragon, but I deviated in order to show my support for the Irish. Having said that, after the Danes voted, I remember having a pint of Carlsberg, but that did not help us much.
	What the Irish result demonstrates more than anything else is that there is a disconnect. The only countries that have said yes—we have to be very careful about our use of words here—are those that have gone through their parliamentary systems; and the only countries that have said no have been the ones where they asked the people. That just shows how out of touch parliamentarians and politicians have become with their own peoples. It is not just the MEPs who are remote—most people accept that they are; many do not even know their names—as so many Members of Parliament are getting it wrong by not listening to their own peoples. That makes the Bill more essential than ever.
	When the French had the opportunity to vote in 2005, they voted no, and the Dutch did exactly the same. The issue was then re-mashed a bit, but as I understand it, it was 96 per cent. the same when it came before us again. Many European politicians said that the treaty was basically the same as the old constitution. Only in this country were we told that it was not—and that was only to get the Government off the hook because they did not want to hold a referendum. When I asked the Foreign Secretary earlier this week whether he felt that if the British had voted on the same day as the Irish, they would have voted any differently, he sort of smiled and said that he only wished as many British people thought as positively about the EU as the Irish did. Many of us accept that it was not an anti-EU vote per se: the Irish were saying not that they wished to pull out of the EU, but that they did not like the constitutional treaty. They wanted a referendum, and their voice was heard.
	Let me demonstrate how dangerous the disconnect is getting. Today's  Daily Express says, "Brown joins EU plot to make Irish hold another treaty vote". If that is the case, we are going into very dangerous territory. The former French President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said yesterday that the Irish should hold another referendum:
	"A country that represents 0.7 per cent. of the European population cannot decide for the others".
	That shows arrogance. Under the current system, 27 countries have to say yes. It is not a matter of 26 countries saying yes and the other country having to roll over and have another referendum.
	Peter Mandelson was mentioned earlier. He blamed the result on—and I love this—
	"an appalling number of rumours on which people's prejudices and fears were built... All those fears should have been addressed, all those misrepresentations should have been corrected. The untruths that were put out by some of the propagandists should have been rebutted at the beginning of the campaign".
	All I have to say to Peter Mandelson is that what goes around, comes around. I just love it—the cheek, the brass neck of it. Mandelson is reported as saying that he did not believe that the Irish people were rejecting Europe, which I agree with, but he went on to say that he saw the treaty as "absolutely essential". He cannot have it both ways. That is what leaves people cold. What is he actually saying? Are the Irish to have another referendum on exactly the same treaty? That is what would have to happen, because if it were changed in any way, shape or form, it would have to come back to all the other Parliaments as well.
	This issue is not just about the Irish. I believe that if the British people had had their say, they would have said no by an even larger majority. For another example, the Czech Prime Minister is now on record as saying that he was not going to put the brakes on to halt ratification, but that he
	"would not bet 100 crowns"—
	The equivalent of $6 or £3—on a yes from the Czech Parliament. Clearly, a number of other countries have a problem.

Nigel Evans: That is why the Bill is so important. It can at least start to put into some form of context the costs, which clearly exist, and the benefits, which clearly exist as well. It informs the debate. It does not necessarily mean that when we receive the commission's account, even if there is a net cost to the United Kingdom—which I understand that there is—we will all say "Let's pull out." I think that what many of the peoples throughout the European Union want is reform. They want the European institutions to become more accountable and more representative of themselves. I suspect that we are not alone in wanting the sovereign Parliaments of member states to be properly recognised and respected, and in wanting to be allowed to do our job rather than having our powers siphoned away—not just by this treaty, but by successive treaties—in a way that dilutes our ability fully and properly to represent the people who send us here.
	That could not be demonstrated better than by José Manuel Barroso. Whenever I mention his name in a pub, I add, "If he walked in here now, how many people would recognise him?" The chances are that not many would. If he walked into the Swan with Two Necks I would buy him a pint of Guinness, but I think I would be the only one to recognise him—yet this man is incredibly powerful.
	When José Manuel Barroso met the Prime Minister yesterday, he said that he wished to thank the British Government for the fact that the constitutional treaty was being ratified. I thought "That is absolutely right: don't thank the British people, because the British people haven't been consulted, and every poll shows that had they been consulted, they would have voted no." I felt that Barroso was absolutely right to thank the Prime Minister for ensuring that the British people were not consulted. I also find it slightly ironic that two days after the Irish people voted no, the unelected Chamber at Westminster decided not to reflect on the Irish decision but to give its endorsement.

Nigel Evans: That is an historic intervention into today's proceedings, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh for bringing the matter to the attention of the House, and to the Liberal Democrats for making their position absolutely clear. The Government have another couple of hours, and I hope that a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement on what they intend to do. As I understand it, the Queen gave the legislation Royal Assent yesterday in order that it should become British law, but the fact is that if it has yet to be deposited in Rome, it is not properly ratified. Therefore, the procedure of not doing that until we have the outcome of that case is vital.

Nigel Evans: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will obey your guidance, but I suspect that it is the dislocation that is relevant to the Bill under discussion. When Ministers act outside of what is the law in order to progress a matter that they think vital, as clearly they think the European project is, this Bill is more necessary than ever. It is pointless—

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch by saying that Norway is a very wealthy country, but for the record, will he admit to the House that Norway has far greater oil and gas reserves per capita than any other European country? Its reserves are certainly far greater than any country in the European Union.

Nigel Evans: I feel somewhat like a post office, or at least like someone who mediates between Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and Conservative Back Benchers. In any case, we congratulate Norway on being a happy, prosperous country. I know some of its politicians, and they do very nicely outside the EU.
	After the no vote, President Sarkozy said that we needed to explain Europe better to the peoples. He is right in many ways, but he misses the point, because he does not fully understand that one of the reasons for the Irish no vote was that they understand the EU very well. Everybody remembers the times when for every pound Ireland put in, it got six pounds out. Ireland was very pro the EU then, but that situation has dramatically changed because of the accession of a number of other EU countries. Those new countries are not as prosperous as some of the old traditional EU countries, and therefore some of the money that used to go to Ireland is now going to them. The Irish voted with their eyes open and they knew exactly what they were doing. I suspect that they voted no for several reasons, and I am not about to tell them that they got it wrong. President Sarkozy and the rest of Europe have to listen to what the Irish have said. We cannot force them to have another vote on the same treaty, because they have already made their voices heard. The process provides for 27 countries in unanimity, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the British Prime Minister will under no circumstances let the Irish down. All 27 countries must support the Lisbon treaty or it falls. The sooner it is pronounced dead the better.
	When we consider the costs and benefits of being a member of the EU, it is a grave mistake for President Sarkozy to make the point that other countries are seeking to join, such as the Balkan states, Turkey, Georgia and perhaps Ukraine, and that that will have to be put on ice. That is an attempt to blackmail countries such as Britain, which is keen to get the EU expanded—I am sure we all think that the more countries are members, the more common sense will prevail, and the project will not be driven by one or two large countries who want to tell everyone else what to do. I hope that President Sarkozy will stop this approach of throwing his toys out of the pram and threatening to spite the rest of Europe by not allowing any other new countries in.
	The problem is not only the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy or structural funds—the gamut of European spending. A slice of our international trade budget also goes to the EU for it to distribute, so that must also be taken into account. In the past couple of days, we have also seen a push towards a common defence policy, backed up by a common EU armed forces. That would have a huge cost, and if British forces were used in the EU contingent, it would not mean a net saving for us. Those forces would still have to be paid for whether they were part of the EU contingent or within the British armed forces. I disagree with the creation of any such EU force, and it helps to explain why so many people in the EU are distressed by the journey we are now on. We are all told not to miss the train, but it is being driven from the front cab by the elites—the politicians and bureaucrats—and the people have very little influence.
	I remember listening to Hans-Gert Pöttering, the President of the European Parliament, when he spoke at the Council of Europe. He said how distressed he was that the changes to the constitution left out the flag and the anthem. Well, that is not much of a sacrifice. It might have distressed him, but it cheered me up no end—

Nigel Evans: It is relentless. If the Lisbon treaty is eventually pronounced dead, we need not think that every aspect of it will go away. We can be sure that the midnight oil will be burned in offices in Brussels and elsewhere while faceless, nameless bureaucrats try to work out how they can bring to life aspects of that dead treaty without consulting the people, such as the Irish, whose constitution requires a referendum. That is the dislocation. That is the arrogance. That is why people feel exasperated at the way in which Europe has progressed. Clearly, there are benefits.
	Frankly, I think that the Bill concerns a pro-European issue, which will probably alarm my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch no end. It will offer an opportunity to have a look at the benefits and not just the costs, as I know that newspapers already follow the costs. I pay tribute to Christopher Booker of  The Sunday Telegraph who, every Sunday, cheers me up and depresses me at the same time. He cheers me up because we have a journalist who is prepared to put into print some of the waste and excesses of the EU institutions, bureaucracy and politicians. He depresses me because I get exasperated reading about what the EU is up to. It is important that people like Christopher Booker are around and can inform us. Once the commission is set up, when the Bill becomes an Act, all the peoples will be better informed. That is all we want, surely. I cannot understand how the Government could oppose that in any way. We want transparency and proper accountability, and I believe that that is what the Bill will introduce.
	On cost, I am becoming a little alarmed by the EU drive on biofuels. It is very difficult to put a cost on that, but we all know that food prices are going through the roof. Inflation is way above what the Government say it is. Part of the problem that is causing prices throughout the world to go up is the rush towards biofuels. I have read:
	"Europe is considering a 10 per cent. target by 2020."
	I thought that a figure of 10 per cent. by 2020 had been agreed, but that quotation is from the  Daily Mail so it must be true. The article includes a quotation from Kenneth Richter of Friends of the Earth, who said:
	"The real problem is the scale of the biofuels targets.
	Finding enough land to grow 10 per cent. of Europe's road fuel will be bad for people and bad for wildlife.
	Governments must drop these targets and concentrate on cutting fuel use by improving public transport."
	I agree with that person. He is an expert. Why are the elites pushing that target time and again?
	At every turn we are seeing a move towards what some people want, although they are afraid to say it—a united states of Europe. I do not believe that the people want that.

Christopher Chope: Biofuels were not on the horizon five years ago, but they are now a core part of the potential burdens on the UK economy. Does that not show the need for regular audits rather than having them every 15 years, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton seems to think would be sufficient?

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my regret that the Minister has not intervened to say whether or not she will be making a statement?

Mark Francois: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is so important that I will look you directly in the eye as I make it. The people of France and the Netherlands voted against the EU constitution, which as the former Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, acknowledged was 90 per cent. the same as the treaty of Lisbon, so in fact 21 million people have voted in referendums against the European constitution and the treaty of Lisbon, which is the constitution by another name. The argument that we are talking about only a million people in Ireland holds no water.
	I regret the fact that, throughout our debate on this important Bill about the considerable amount of money that we pay to the European Union, not a single Labour Back Bencher has sat in the Chamber, although the Minister and a Government Whip are here. That is indicative of the Labour party's increasingly supine attitude to the British national interest with regard to Europe. Today was yet one more example of the attitude that we have seen the Government take in the past few months.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) gave a very good speech. He courteously offered his apologies to the House for the fact that he could not remain for the winding-up speeches as he had a meeting with the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to try to save a test centre in his constituency. As I have been involved in a campaign to save a test centre in Southend, I wish him all the best—

Mark Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. As he knows, Members hardly ever challenge Library figures; we generally regard them as authoritative. From what he has said, I think we can agree that the figure for 2006 was about £3 billion and the figure for 2007 was in excess of £4 billion—and I reiterate the point that because of the reduction in the EU rebate, that net contribution per annum is likely to increase still further.
	That is an important point to make. We had thought that the budget rebate won at Fontainebleau in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher was safe, not least because the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said very clearly in 2005:
	"The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period."—[ Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	He said that at Prime Minister's questions in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has been present for part of our debate this morning. Unfortunately, however, like many of that former Prime Minister's sayings, that did not stand the test of time. Within a year, the Government had agreed to sign away £7.2 billion of British taxpayers' money in return for a non-binding commitment to have a review of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, one area this Bill should allow to be investigated in detail is the former Prime Minister's surrender of our rebate, since endorsed by the new Prime Minister, and whether that represented value for money for our taxpayers. I am of the clear opinion that it did not.
	However, the EU is more than just a balance sheet of payments and receipts. The main advantage the UK gains from the EU is access to the single market. We benefit both in terms of access to continental markets and from the foreign investment that comes here in order to benefit from our place in the market. However, access to the market comes with the price of regulation, and that cost has been rising. The British Chambers of Commerce "burdens barometer", which measures the cost of regulation to business, has shown that the cost of regulation to British business is now £66 billion a year, compared with an estimated cost of £10 million in 2001. A large proportion of that has been caused by EU regulation, and in particular the estimated £1.8 billion cost of the working time directive—that issue has been raised a number of times in this House. One benefit of an audit of the costs and benefits of our EU membership could be to highlight where the Government are failing to reduce the costs to British business, and thus give a much needed impetus to reform.

Meg Munn: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government to what has been a wide-ranging debate. It has contained the usual hyperbole that we hear from Opposition Members when they get talking about the European Union, and a great deal of claims have been made for the process in the Bill.
	When I read the detail of the Bill, I was somewhat surprised. First, I am not sure how the Bill's suggested commission would do its job. We have explored in detail the problems with it. Most notably, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, raised some issues, and I shall return to them in due course. I am also intrigued by the proposed process: how the commission—the committee of inquiry—would be set up, its costs, and why Opposition Members seem so wedded to such a bureaucratic process for something that could be extremely wide-ranging and take a considerable amount of time.
	The Government strongly believe that the benefits of European Union membership clearly outweigh the costs. I am delighted to be able to set out in more detail some of the reasons why and, in doing so, to demonstrate why I believe that such a committee would face an impossible task, as was ably demonstrated this morning.
	UK membership of the European Union is central to the pursuit of stability, growth and employment. It is firmly in our national interests, both economically and in a wider political and strategic context. Our membership of the European Union has brought real benefits in jobs, peace and security. Through it, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc, with a single market of more than 490 million people. It is a unique organisation that is looked at from around the world with great interest. With the development of regional organisations in other parts of the world, people are looking to the European Union, not necessarily to follow exactly the same route, but because they are interested in the wide range of benefits that come from co-operating with one's immediate neighbours.
	Half the UK's trade is now within the European Union, with an estimated 3.5 million British jobs linked to it directly and indirectly. Fifty-seven per cent. of total British trade in goods is with the European Union, and 53 per cent. of our total exports go to the European Union. In 2005, British investment in the European Union totalled over £17 billion. However, the benefits are not limited to the rights of British companies to buy and sell across the single market. Our European Union membership allows our citizens to live, work, study and travel across Europe and entitles us to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday. These are all clearly benefits, and it would be interesting to understand in more detail how such a committee of inquiry would begin to quantify them.
	We know that many Opposition Members have for a long time opposed the benefits that have accrued to our citizens through the social chapter; indeed, it has been reiterated this morning that the Opposition would intend to pull out of it. The social chapter initially brought about the improved maternity benefits for women in the United Kingdom; before it came in, we were in a parlous state. I am delighted to say that this Government have gone a great deal further, not only on maternity benefits but on paternity benefits. Those benefits would need to be quantified as well. The right to paid holidays is enormously important, but was not seen as such by the Opposition when they were in power. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to the reduction in the cost of mobile phone calls when abroad. These are just a few of the practical benefits that the European Union has helped to deliver.

Meg Munn: There we have the problem, and the fundamental basis of our disagreement. The hon. Gentleman says that this is a simple issue, but I am arguing that it is not, because of the wide range of benefits involved, even within the three areas that he has set out for the commission to look at. Of course, the Stern report looked into the environment and had much to deal with. There could well be early agreement on what constitutes climate change and associated issues, but what I am arguing is that the economic, national security and defence benefits of EU are extremely wide-ranging.
	Let me make some more progress and discuss trade issues. EU anti-trust laws prohibit activities that stifle competition in Europe, and the Commission is upping its game. In February 2007, it imposed a record fine of €992 million on four lift manufacturers for price fixing. That was followed in April by the break-up of a cartel operated by Heineken, Grolsch and Bavaria brewers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who demonstrated his interest in beers earlier today, would think that that was a good thing. Hon. Members have asked about the effectiveness of the EU in respect of a wide range of matters, so here is one area where we can see that action is indeed being taken.
	Let us look in more detail into the issues surrounding investment to and from the UK. In 2005, British companies invested €25.8 billion in the EU, up from €17.1 billion on the year before. In 2005, the 25 EU member states, as they were then, received €70 billion in foreign direct investment from outside the EU. Of that, the UK received 24 per cent. That is a further demonstration of what I am saying about the real benefits not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe in its trading with the wider world. Also in 2005, foreign direct investment inflows into the UK from the EU 25 amounted in and of themselves to €115.4 billion.
	The EU is unique in providing a forum in which member countries can share best practice and learn from others' experiences, helping to ensure that European businesses can compete effectively in global markets and develop the right infrastructure for a successful modern economy.
	In 2006, the UK had a trade deficit with the EU of £11 billion or 3.5 per cent. of total trade. With non-EU countries, however, the trade deficit was £84 billion, or 21 per cent. of total trade. We can see that a great deal of trade is going on.
	Let me deal with the issue of better regulation, which was raised by a number of hon. Members who were particularly concerned about it, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who at this moment is probably seeing his nephew get married. As I have already demonstrated, the UK Government are, of course, committed to reducing any unnecessary burdens on businesses, charities and the voluntary sector that arise from EU directives and regulations. We are seeking to enshrine the principles of better regulation, which we are working so hard on for our national legislation, across the work of EU institutions. Those principles are proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting.
	Our aim is not to reduce social and environmental protections. Hon. Members will already have noted that I am keen on those and want to them to continue in Europe. The Government, unlike the Opposition on the social chapter, are firmly committed to such protections and we want to ensure that we do not lose them through deregulation. We want to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, which stifles European business, and to remove, recast or modify outdated policies and laws that no longer serve their purpose.
	With the strong support of the UK Government, the current European Commission has shown real commitment to improving the quality of European regulation. I can give some examples of significant progress. An EU-wide commitment could cut red tape resulting from EU law by 25 per cent. by 2012. A detailed five-year programme aims to save businesses across the EU £100 billion by 2012 by rationalising rules that generate paperwork. New EU draft legislation is now subject to an impact assessment process, and since 2003 the European Commission has completed 284 impact assessments. Proposals that have been rejected on the basis of cost-benefit analyses include an EU witness protection law and a new law on voting rights for shareholders.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) discussed the budget process earlier. Surely all Members would agree that it is better to consider the costs and benefits of EU legislation before, rather than after, something happens.
	The European Commission has a rolling programme to simplify and modernise existing European Union legislation, and I expect it to command general support. The Commission has already proposed or adopted 92 simplification measures, and will present 45 new measures in 2008. Examples include simpler packaging rules: pre-packaging requirements applying to some 70 consumer products have been repealed. The rules for the registering and selling of motor vehicles in the European Union have been simplified, while maintaining safety standards. Again, I expect that to command all Members' support. A more efficient and competitive payments market will make cross-border financial payments as easy, cheap and secure as payments within a member state.

Meg Munn: I will certainly try to do that. On the benefit of the European Union as opposed to, say, co-operation with the United States, the European arrest warrant has shown its worth. It was agreed in 2004 and was used to extradite Hussain Osman, one of those who attempted to bomb the London underground on 21 July 2005, to the UK from Italy within weeks. I think that the hon. Gentleman would see that as a positive thing, and it was a significant improvement on previous procedures.
	The UK and Ireland play a proactive role with other member states in working to tackle illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system. Member nations are also co-ordinating the co-operation of police and courts to pursue criminals across the EU and enforce penalties imposed on them.
	Enlargement has made Europe more secure and more prosperous. The enlargement process promotes democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in candidate countries, and the EU is already driving positive change beyond its borders, for example, in Ukraine. By negotiating with a single voice on trade, the EU can make a stronger contribution to global trade negotiations than each member state could alone. We believe that that gives us a stronger voice in the world.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked how that affects our situation in relation to the US. The fact that the EU can speak together is really important. As I said earlier, I think that we will increasingly see regional groupings coming together around the world over the next few years. Working with our neighbours, thereby being able to speak to other regional blocs, is a way to achieve a securer and stronger world.
	I want to mention the importance of EU funds in supporting many poorer regions in the UK. Such programmes work through direct spending on transport and other infrastructure, and on training people and helping them to learn new skills. I have seen this over many years in my own constituency of Sheffield, Heeley and throughout south Yorkshire; however, it has benefited not just those areas but Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands of Scotland, Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, Merseyside, west Wales and the valleys. Many well-known projects, such as Cornwall's Eden project, have been assisted by EU aid. I hope that Members recognise the importance of that, and see that it is yet another area that such a commission and report would need to cover.
	Members might also not be aware of the importance of EU funds to overseas territories. As the Minister with responsibility for overseas territories, I increasingly see projects that are of great benefit to those territories. Indeed, for some of them they can really make the difference between viability and their continuing to need aid and support from the UK Government, thereby continuing to be a cost to and a drain on our citizens.
	Hon. Members were concerned about the situation in relation to the judicial review of the Lisbon treaty. I can tell them that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on Monday, following the European Council discussion, and there will be ample opportunity for them to raise this issue. The way forward on the Lisbon treaty is, of course, an important issue, and it is being discussed at the European Council in Brussels.
	I could say a great deal more. For example, I have not spoken about the importance of peace, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton discussed. I grew up with a great deal of understanding about peace. In my household, I was brought up to understand the benefits of the countries of Europe no longer being at war with each other. Other greatly important things include the freedom to move about; the ability to buy properties overseas more easily; and the benefits for our citizens from overseas territories.
	Finally, the Government strongly believe that the benefits of EU membership far outweigh the costs. I was asked what I see as the costs, and a figure has been outlined. We have also talked about regulation, on which we are continuing to press, so that it gets reduced. This issue has been raised a number of times in Parliament and the Government continue to address it fully in written and oral parliamentary questions. Moreover, there have been opportunities for full consideration of these matters during parliamentary scrutiny of, among other things, the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which received 25 days of debate. There is also plenty of time to examine EU issues widely in all the scrutiny Committees that exist. On that basis, I have decided that a requirement for the Government to produce an economic cost-benefit analysis of the UK's membership of the European Union is entirely unnecessary.

Simon Burns: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) on bringing the Bill before the House? I pay tribute to her for her tremendous work as chairman of the all-party group on children who run away or go missing, and for her campaigning over many years on this sensitive and important subject.
	The hon. Lady's Bill highlights a number of serious issues. According to the Children's Society, 100,000 children under 16 years old run away each year. The society's research indicates that such children are often fleeing family conflict, neglect and abuse, but they may also be pulled away to be near friends, or as a result of
	grooming by an adult. Such children often sleep rough and are at much greater risk of sexual exploitation, violence and drug taking. One in 12 young runaways is hurt or harmed while away.
	The key point that the Bill rightly identifies is the current lack of information about missing or runaway children and the lack of co-ordination between the relevant agencies to act when a child at risk has been identified. The hon. Lady puts her point clearly and starkly when she argues that better information is available nationally on missing cars than on missing children. The number, age and gender of children who are reported missing from home are not collected centrally. Such a facility has been available in the United States, for example, for a number of years. It is said that the new National Missing Persons Bureau, which the National Policing Improvement Agency launched on 1 April, will seek to develop national information to support local police operations.
	One of the priorities for the bureau is to carry out a strategic assessment on missing people to formulate, develop and measure future policy initiatives in close consultation with the missing persons strategic oversight group. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House what progress is being made with the strategic assessment, when it will be completed and what areas the policy formulation is expected to address in general, and specifically in relation to missing children. The Government's young runaways action plan talks about the bureau acting as a hub for the sharing of best practice and to co-ordinate consistent policing activity in the search for missing young people, with promises of revised guidance for police forces. However, are the Government planning to develop a central register of missing persons? Perhaps the Minister could provide some clarity on that, as it is not clear from the statements that have been made so far.
	Can the Minister confirm how many police forces use the computerised system to record and manage reports of runaway and missing children? It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Warrington, South, among others, that less than half the 43 police forces do so. Is that number correct, and if so, why are so few police forces using it?
	It is not just law enforcement agencies that need to focus on obtaining better information on missing children. Schools, local authorities and local social services departments also need to examine closely the issues of missing children. The Government have said that a new indicator in the national indicator set is to be introduced, covering children who run away from home or care, with data being monitored on a quarterly basis. Will that provide details on how many young runaways there are? How will it secure more effective joint working between children's services, the police and local partners? What monitoring of the response of local strategic partnerships to the collection of data will be undertaken?
	Collecting information is one thing, but as we have seen in other areas, doing something about it is another. That crucial factor was starkly highlighted by the recent Home Affairs Committee inquiry on domestic violence, forced marriages and "honour"-based violence. The Committee highlighted disturbing evidence of children having gone off school rolls without anyone tracking where they are, and noted concerns that some of those missing children may have been forced to marry overseas.
	Although Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has reported that most authorities have "good" procedures in place, in a few areas there is a lack of an overarching, co-ordinated approach to collecting and recording data relating to missing children that makes it difficult to establish their whereabouts. The Minister has acknowledged that there is scope for developing some standard definitions for local authorities to use in collecting information. The Government are currently consulting on updated, extended statutory guidance on identifying children not receiving a suitable education.
	The Committee said that the whole situation caused it "great concern", adding, at paragraph 166:
	"Rather than disproving that there are children missing from schools who have been removed and forced to marry, our investigation showed simply that there is no adequate mechanism of identifying these children."
	If one looks at the situation regarding children missing from children's homes, a similar theme emerges. In 2005, 290 children went missing on one or more occasions. In 2006, the figure was again 290, and in 2007 it was 300. In 2006, 370 children went missing for more than a month while apparently being looked after by social services. This is of particular concern, as it highlights the dangers of child exploitation and the trafficking of children.
	Research published by UNICEF shows that in an 18-month period 330 children were believed to have been trafficked into the UK and that 183 of them went missing from the care of social services. The Government have published guidance for local authorities, but more will be required if we are to make a real difference and to put child protection to the fore. We must avoid the horrendous situation in which children come under the protection of the state but the state cannot deliver on its obligations to them. They should and must be protected. Just one example concerns Vietnamese cannabis factories that are currently being raided, with findings of children being exploited, misused and abused.
	The question arises of what checks are done on family members. In certain circumstances, children who have been arrested are handed back to supposed family members, but there is evidence to suggest that they are not actually relatives but part of the criminal gangs responsible for the trafficking. Further checks must be carried out to ensure that children are not handed back to the gangs that want to continue to exploit them.
	Operations such as Operation Pentameter and the current Operation Pentameter 2 deal with the sex trade. Does their scope need to be broadened to take account of children who are trafficked not just for sex but for other forms of exploitation? That underlines the need for not just the reporting and collection of information but the swift adoption and ratification of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. I urge the Minister to press ahead with that and identify the necessary mechanisms for it, whether under secondary or primary legislation. He has our assurance that the Opposition want that delivered as quickly as possible.
	We need to deliver also on other practical measures to ensure that proper checks are made at borders and that we have a robust and effective border police force that can minimise the dangers that are highlighted by the Bill.
	I am realistic about the fact that, given the stage of the parliamentary year, the timetable will not allow this important, although very short and concise Bill to reach the statute book. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, South, on promoting it and on once again providing a platform to highlight the terrible suffering and problems that lie behind the need for the Bill. In the understanding that it is improbable that it will reach the statute book in this Session, I urge the Minister to work on the basis of the Bill to make the necessary changes and bring in effective checks and balances to give more help and protection to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. I urge him to give real meaning to the expression and show that every child really does matter.

Kevin Brennan: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) for her continuing commitment to children and young people, which is well known throughout the House. I commend her, and the other members of the all-party group on children who run away or go missing, for their tireless work to improve services for such young people. She rightly challenged me, using Bob the Builder as an example. Can we fix it? I think we can. I hope she will welcome what I say in response to her Bill.
	I am pleased to be given a chance to speak about the Bill and the important issues that it raises about the support that we offer vulnerable young people. Every child does matter, including those who run away from home or go missing. The Government have clear aims for all children and young people, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families was set up to make those aims central to what we do in Government.
	We want all children to enjoy a happy, healthy and safe childhood that prepares them for adult life, so that they can make a positive contribution. Running away is a clear sign that something is wrong in a child or young person's life, and we must ensure that action is taken to keep the 100,000 young people who run away safe and give them the support they need to deal with their problems. We need to protect them from the risks that they face.
	According to the Children's Society, which has been mentioned, about one in 12 runaways are hurt or harmed. Even when a child does not come to direct physical harm, running away can seriously affect them in all sorts of other ways, such as through missing school or missing the chance to develop both relationships with their peers and their physical and mental health. That is why it is vital that we do everything we can, not only to support young people who run away but, when appropriate, to prevent them from reaching the point at which they feel that running away is their only option. We need to mobilise services to spot and stop those problems early, before they develop.
	We have already done a lot to combat the problems of vulnerable young people. Indeed, reference has been made to that this afternoon. The Every Child Matters reforms have transformed the way in which local services work together, using the common assessment framework and sharing information about children at risk of harm. Better joined-up working and information sharing across professional boundaries mean that children are now less likely to slip through the gaps, because professionals have a better picture of their needs and can tailor support for them, drawing in other professionals and services as necessary.
	We introduced a duty under the Children Act 2004 for a range of bodies, including children's services, health services and the police, to have regard to the welfare and safety of children and young people. All local authorities must now also have a local safeguarding children board, to bring together partners to co-ordinate safeguarding services. All local authorities are currently reforming targeted youth support services, to improve how they identify children at risk and prevent their problems from reaching crisis point.
	There has been considerable progress in recent years, but we know that there is still more to do to help the most vulnerable children in our society. We took a significant step forward on Monday, when I was delighted to join my hon. Friend at No. 10 Downing street to launch the publication of the young runaways action plan—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke for the Opposition, mentioned it too, and I noticed that my hon. Friend had a copy in her hand while making her speech. She played a big part in the genesis and development of the action plan, working with us in the Government and all the agencies involved in putting it together. It was a pleasure to launch it with her at No. 10.
	The plan sets out our next steps to help and support vulnerable children and young people. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the commitments made in the plan and how they relate to the Bill. It is not a coincidence that my hon. Friend's Bill has helped us to focus on the right measures to take, which have been outlined in the plan.
	Our No. 1 priority is prevention. The earlier we can spot a problem, the better. We must therefore improve our ability to pick out children at risk, identify their problems and try to resolve the underlying issues that make them run away. The youth taskforce will work with local authorities to put the issue of supporting young people at risk of running away at the heart of their targeted youth support arrangements. The action plan also includes a commitment to develop new resources to help schools and youth centres to play a stronger role in educating young people about the risks of running away and in telling them what support is available if they are experiencing problems. There will always be some children who run away, probably no matter what we do—the problem is not a new one, as hon. Members know. The action plan therefore sets out how we will try to improve local services to ensure that they respond more effectively to those who run away.
	Every year, about 17,000 young runaways end up sleeping rough, at great risk to their health and safety. We need to do more to ensure that there are safe places for runaways to go while their reasons for running away are addressed. We will be working with the Government offices to help local safeguarding children boards to put in place effective action plans to keep young runaways safe.
	A review of existing research on emergency accommodation is already under way. The action plan means that we will investigate with local authorities ways in which they can improve the commissioning of such accommodation at the local, regional and sub-regional levels by this autumn, and we do not intend to stop there. Next spring, we will publish updated guidance on children missing from care and home, ensuring that it joins up with guidance on young people missing from education, and guidance on trafficking and sexual exploitation, to meet the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The new guidance will give local authorities practical examples of how they can support young runaways better.
	The support of our partners has been central to the development of the action plan. It is vital that strong local partnerships exist between the agencies concerned with protecting vulnerable children, such as the police. The National Policing Improvement Agency has established a new Missing Persons Bureau to act as an exchange for information connected with the search for missing people and to co-ordinate consistent policing activity in the search for missing people. The bureau designs guidance for police forces, and will fully review the existing guidance on the management, recording and investigation of missing persons.
	My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of data collection on runaway and missing children. She has quite rightly banged on about that for some time. Ensuring that all parties have access to the right information at local level is crucial to greater co-operation, to effective intervention, and ultimately to ensuring that no young person slips through the net when it comes to getting the right support. That is why we have introduced the new indicator in the national indicator set on young runaways that was referred to earlier.
	The new indicator shows the priority that the Government place on improving services for young runaways and will act as a lever to catalyse the change that we need. It will allow local strategic partnerships and children's trusts to begin to establish the scale of problems in their local area, to put services in place to respond accordingly, and to establish local targets if appropriate. I expect it to facilitate better collections of data about vulnerable young people, and to help to secure effective joint working between children's services, the police and other local partners. However, to ensure that it achieves those objectives, we will need to see how it works in practice. We are to review the indicator in 2009-10, monitoring it on a quarterly basis, and if the evidence shows that the indicator is not driving better collections of data about this vulnerable group of young people, we will be prepared to consider the introduction of legislation to ensure that that happens.
	The indicator will be supported by police data collections, which is another point that my hon. Friend has raised on many occasions. The Missing Persons Bureau is working to ensure that data—including data on young runaways and missing children—can be transferred automatically and electronically from local police forces to the bureau, so that it can develop a national picture of missing persons. To support this work, the bureau is working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office to introduce guidance on police data collection methodologies that has statutory status as a police code of practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that. I note that she is nodding.